Define "commonly." A key tenet of our system of government is not absolute freedom, but rather near-absolute agency, government being established to protect my agency from yours. You have the freedom to swing your fist only up to where my nose begins, "governments are established by people to secure those rights;" and the like. Absolute freedom would imply the freedom to steal. That's anarchy. We don't have anarchy. We (aspire to) have the minimum amount of government to secure the maximum amount of freedom.
OK...and that's kind of the bargain people enter into when their whole life depends on having a camera jammed in their face. That is to say, I don't give a fuck about their convenience for the same reasons I don't give a fuck about what restaurant they were seen dining at and with whom.
IP laws are pretty clearly delineated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution as a method of protecting against theft. Classified material is only illegal to leak out. Once it's out, you can't be prosecuted for repeating it. The absolutism really is an absolutism if phrased as, "You think it, you can say it unless you stole the words from someone else or are using them to direct physical violence."
except as a platonic ideal in scifi-land. In real life, it doesn't for some very fundamental reasons. But most journalists are writers, so they see 'AI' and think Asimov.
Not "right," but "capacity." I am perfectly *capable* of making an enormous mess with lots of tears for many people right now, and just about every waking moment; I have no *right* to do so. Conversely, the *right* to self-defense is there for everyone. Some do not have the *capacity* to exercise it, some choose not to for moral and/or philosophical reasons. But that disability or choice doesn't mean it's open season on cripples and pacifists. You still have no *right* to attack someone who chooses not to fight back or who is physically incapable of defending himself.
That's a utilitarian argument on its surface, but a theological one when dig deeper because you're implicitly assuming that having a society in which problems are solved by the many, rather than the few, or that they're solved at all, is a Good with a capital G. In some theologies that shall remain nameless, a lack of problem solving is held up as Good, on the grounds that only in the heavens is there perfection and the terrestrial realm is by its nature sinful; to attempt to perfect things down here would be playing God. That's one general example. There are other many specific others. The point is, you've made a value judgement and then concluded that freedom of speech is a means to that end.
I and most hard-core libertarians make a different value judgement, specifically that freedom of speech is an end onto itself. The more Randian types will stop there. More theologically-oriented types will go further and claim that that end is derived from God's plan for the universe.
But that's a theological debate. Time was, we all bought into that same broad theology, taught it to our children, and lived it, so there was no debate that personal freedom, religious freedom, and free speech were good. Most people generally still believe that, but they've been shamed by certain elements of society into being less vocal about it. And many of those same elements have a hearty disdain for anything that claims a mandate from God. So to the extent that they believe in freedom of speech, they do so out of purely utilitarian grounds, which leaves them open to carving out exceptions and limits on utilitarian grounds. Don't get me wrong: those utilitarian arguments are real, but here's the thing: if you believe God gave man a mind and a voice and the faculty of rational thought and the command to be fruitful and multiply, you're going to prioritize freedom over utility. And if you don't, then you won't, because by carving down on freedom, you're just balancing the numbers, you aren't making a deal with the devil.
Education helps, but experience helps more. In fact, formal schooling (at least primary and secondary education) is a pretty bad forum to learn to be skeptical. The mechanics of the whole process are predicated on reading or listening and believing. You can be told to take everything with a grain of salt until it's the background chorus for your dreams, but it's just another thing you've been told, right along with American history and redox reactions and Shakespearean sonnets. It's not until you go out into the working world and see the consequences of credulity for yourself that you're likely to understand the difference between what you're told and what is.
Propaganda reads like propaganda, no matter how much money is pissed into making it read like not propaganda.
Here's a hint: people aren't as stupid as you think they are. They can generally tell when you're reporting as truth something they see with their own eyes is false, and vice-versa. That's why journalism gets no respect these days. Everything reads like propaganda and the only people who think it doesn't are the bubble-dwellers in NY, SF, and DC who write it and hand out almost exclusively with other people who write it. It would just be impolite to pull out a sharp object in that sort of company.
Proof is not possible. Freedom of speech as a societal aspiration is a philosophical choice we collectively make. That statement is the proof. You either buy in to freedom of speech or you don't. Similarly, notions about when the age of consent is and in fact the very notion that only things that are not consensual are bad and worthy of criminalization is a a philosophical choice we collectively make. Most of us do so for theological reasons, as compactly stated in the American Declaration of Independence, for example. Some of do so for purely utilitarian reasons. The two are not necessarily exclusive, but if you're a hard-core theologian, you'd disagree with that. So the "proof" is that one falls under the category of things that we allow, thus we allow it, and the other does not, thus we don't. Sounds like a tautology, but isn't.
Especially the cheap plastic toys you'd get for a small child to practice with. By a factor of a thousand cheaper than an automobile at least. Doesn't mean they do the same job with the same level of capability or reliability.
That's my point. Doing it wrong is fast and easy. Doing it right is more time-consuming. And that extra work ought not be required when it isn't necessary. But I repeat myself.
If I want to set up a development system on an air-gapped network, I don't really want to deal with the bullshit and the fragility of having certificates up to date. Especially if set air-gapped network is used for controlling machinery or other specialized equipment. Repeat after me: the computer shall do what it's told by its owner, not what some desk jockey in California thinks it should do.
Read the editorials in the NYT, WaPo, and CNN for a week straight and come back and try to tell me exactly what you've just said with a straight face. I'll wait.
No, they elect them. They also put them in to cushy jobs at national newspapers, radio, and TV networks where they sanctimoniously preach at us about how sinful and depraved we are in between getting blow jobs from interns under their desks. And when it's an intern of the same gender, then we're also homophobes for good measure.
actually looking at the neon vacancy/no vacancy signs when deciding where to sleep on a long road trip instead of booking ahead online, science museums that had motorized miniatures and hands-on exhibits instead of a bunch of touchscreens and videos, being able to learn something by watching the History, Discovery, or Learning channels, TV news that was actual news instead of a bunch of people sitting around a table in NY or DC talking at each other, newspapers with actual information content, phone calls that didn't sound like compression artifacts, saturday morning cartoons that didn't look like crude drawings made on an acid trip, and of course....funny Simpsons.
Morality like having reliable and safe aircraft engines? Low maintenance means less taking things apart and putting them back together, which means less opportunity to make silly but very consequential mistakes, no matter how consumate of a professional the mechanic is. The fewer chances for human error, the safer the plane. The safer the plane, the fewer people who die horrible deaths from silly mistakes.
Adulthood is understanding that many good things are in direct conflict with one another and it is not possible to have all of both. Clean air and clean water are good, but so is reliable and safe transportation, heated dwellings, and modern medicine which relies on both of those and a dozen more benefits of industrial capitalism.
No you dumb communist. Just no. Yes, in a free society, people game the system to their advantage and short of locking up everyone who looks at you funny, you can't fix that. In a totalitarian/egalitarian state, people game the system to their advantage and lock up, execute, or disappear anyone who looks at them funny. That's not preferable to what we've got.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "commonly." A key tenet of our system of government is not absolute freedom, but rather near-absolute agency, government being established to protect my agency from yours. You have the freedom to swing your fist only up to where my nose begins, "governments are established by people to secure those rights;" and the like. Absolute freedom would imply the freedom to steal. That's anarchy. We don't have anarchy. We (aspire to) have the minimum amount of government to secure the maximum amount of freedom.
OK...and that's kind of the bargain people enter into when their whole life depends on having a camera jammed in their face. That is to say, I don't give a fuck about their convenience for the same reasons I don't give a fuck about what restaurant they were seen dining at and with whom.
IP laws are pretty clearly delineated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution as a method of protecting against theft. Classified material is only illegal to leak out. Once it's out, you can't be prosecuted for repeating it. The absolutism really is an absolutism if phrased as, "You think it, you can say it unless you stole the words from someone else or are using them to direct physical violence."
Paper books are better. Complaining about vendor lock-in isn't. Caveat emptor.
I'm not declaring more real, I'm asserting that there is a supreme moral order to the universe.
except as a platonic ideal in scifi-land. In real life, it doesn't for some very fundamental reasons. But most journalists are writers, so they see 'AI' and think Asimov.
But AI's got what plants cra...oh wait, wrong thread.
Not "right," but "capacity." I am perfectly *capable* of making an enormous mess with lots of tears for many people right now, and just about every waking moment; I have no *right* to do so. Conversely, the *right* to self-defense is there for everyone. Some do not have the *capacity* to exercise it, some choose not to for moral and/or philosophical reasons. But that disability or choice doesn't mean it's open season on cripples and pacifists. You still have no *right* to attack someone who chooses not to fight back or who is physically incapable of defending himself.
That's a utilitarian argument on its surface, but a theological one when dig deeper because you're implicitly assuming that having a society in which problems are solved by the many, rather than the few, or that they're solved at all, is a Good with a capital G. In some theologies that shall remain nameless, a lack of problem solving is held up as Good, on the grounds that only in the heavens is there perfection and the terrestrial realm is by its nature sinful; to attempt to perfect things down here would be playing God. That's one general example. There are other many specific others. The point is, you've made a value judgement and then concluded that freedom of speech is a means to that end.
I and most hard-core libertarians make a different value judgement, specifically that freedom of speech is an end onto itself. The more Randian types will stop there. More theologically-oriented types will go further and claim that that end is derived from God's plan for the universe.
But that's a theological debate. Time was, we all bought into that same broad theology, taught it to our children, and lived it, so there was no debate that personal freedom, religious freedom, and free speech were good. Most people generally still believe that, but they've been shamed by certain elements of society into being less vocal about it. And many of those same elements have a hearty disdain for anything that claims a mandate from God. So to the extent that they believe in freedom of speech, they do so out of purely utilitarian grounds, which leaves them open to carving out exceptions and limits on utilitarian grounds. Don't get me wrong: those utilitarian arguments are real, but here's the thing: if you believe God gave man a mind and a voice and the faculty of rational thought and the command to be fruitful and multiply, you're going to prioritize freedom over utility. And if you don't, then you won't, because by carving down on freedom, you're just balancing the numbers, you aren't making a deal with the devil.
Education helps, but experience helps more. In fact, formal schooling (at least primary and secondary education) is a pretty bad forum to learn to be skeptical. The mechanics of the whole process are predicated on reading or listening and believing. You can be told to take everything with a grain of salt until it's the background chorus for your dreams, but it's just another thing you've been told, right along with American history and redox reactions and Shakespearean sonnets. It's not until you go out into the working world and see the consequences of credulity for yourself that you're likely to understand the difference between what you're told and what is.
Propaganda reads like propaganda, no matter how much money is pissed into making it read like not propaganda.
Here's a hint: people aren't as stupid as you think they are. They can generally tell when you're reporting as truth something they see with their own eyes is false, and vice-versa. That's why journalism gets no respect these days. Everything reads like propaganda and the only people who think it doesn't are the bubble-dwellers in NY, SF, and DC who write it and hand out almost exclusively with other people who write it. It would just be impolite to pull out a sharp object in that sort of company.
Proof is not possible. Freedom of speech as a societal aspiration is a philosophical choice we collectively make. That statement is the proof. You either buy in to freedom of speech or you don't. Similarly, notions about when the age of consent is and in fact the very notion that only things that are not consensual are bad and worthy of criminalization is a a philosophical choice we collectively make. Most of us do so for theological reasons, as compactly stated in the American Declaration of Independence, for example. Some of do so for purely utilitarian reasons. The two are not necessarily exclusive, but if you're a hard-core theologian, you'd disagree with that. So the "proof" is that one falls under the category of things that we allow, thus we allow it, and the other does not, thus we don't. Sounds like a tautology, but isn't.
No systemd joke?
And how does it know what's up? It checks its programming to figure out which way up should be based on where it thinks it is.
Especially the cheap plastic toys you'd get for a small child to practice with. By a factor of a thousand cheaper than an automobile at least. Doesn't mean they do the same job with the same level of capability or reliability.
That's my point. Doing it wrong is fast and easy. Doing it right is more time-consuming. And that extra work ought not be required when it isn't necessary. But I repeat myself.
If I want to set up a development system on an air-gapped network, I don't really want to deal with the bullshit and the fragility of having certificates up to date. Especially if set air-gapped network is used for controlling machinery or other specialized equipment. Repeat after me: the computer shall do what it's told by its owner, not what some desk jockey in California thinks it should do.
Read the editorials in the NYT, WaPo, and CNN for a week straight and come back and try to tell me exactly what you've just said with a straight face. I'll wait.
No, they elect them. They also put them in to cushy jobs at national newspapers, radio, and TV networks where they sanctimoniously preach at us about how sinful and depraved we are in between getting blow jobs from interns under their desks. And when it's an intern of the same gender, then we're also homophobes for good measure.
It's not a capital i or a lower-case L, it's a vertical line emoji.
actually looking at the neon vacancy/no vacancy signs when deciding where to sleep on a long road trip instead of booking ahead online, science museums that had motorized miniatures and hands-on exhibits instead of a bunch of touchscreens and videos, being able to learn something by watching the History, Discovery, or Learning channels, TV news that was actual news instead of a bunch of people sitting around a table in NY or DC talking at each other, newspapers with actual information content, phone calls that didn't sound like compression artifacts, saturday morning cartoons that didn't look like crude drawings made on an acid trip, and of course....funny Simpsons.
Is this going to be the MS version of Gnome 3?
Morality like having reliable and safe aircraft engines? Low maintenance means less taking things apart and putting them back together, which means less opportunity to make silly but very consequential mistakes, no matter how consumate of a professional the mechanic is. The fewer chances for human error, the safer the plane. The safer the plane, the fewer people who die horrible deaths from silly mistakes.
Adulthood is understanding that many good things are in direct conflict with one another and it is not possible to have all of both. Clean air and clean water are good, but so is reliable and safe transportation, heated dwellings, and modern medicine which relies on both of those and a dozen more benefits of industrial capitalism.
How odd
No you dumb communist. Just no. Yes, in a free society, people game the system to their advantage and short of locking up everyone who looks at you funny, you can't fix that. In a totalitarian/egalitarian state, people game the system to their advantage and lock up, execute, or disappear anyone who looks at them funny. That's not preferable to what we've got.